Judiciary Committee- Senate and House
Video
Transcript
5 documents
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 6, 2026
And ambiguity jumped out at me, so I want to thank Representative Dalby for bringing this bill because I had no idea, and when you study the history of the courts, and I spent a lot of time these last few months just reading and studying the history of the courts, that word ambiguity, listen, we've got a lot of ambiguity, and there's no way that you can have a court system
that functions like it should function with this kind of stuff because we've got statutes that we haven't followed in 30 years. And so this is something that needed to be fixed and I appreciate Representative Dobby for bringing this bill before the House, the Senate, and the Judiciary. So thank you again
for being here. Our first presenters this morning... I need a motion. to approve the minutes of the last meeting got a motion second all those in favor say aye
all right our first presenters will
Speaker 8
1:08
be department of corrections good morning
Speaker 12
1:18
uh tawny rowell i'm the chief legal counsel for the department of corrections former director of the sentencing commission and acting director for situations like this until we get me replaced. So what we have here is an administrative rule promulgated by the
sentencing commission. The Protect Arkansas Act changed the thresholds for parole eligibility for offenses committed honor after 1-1 of 2025. Formerly, you had a few offenses that were set out in statute with special parole eligibility rules and the remainder were dealt with via administrative rule that was promulgated by the sentencing commission. You would serve one half or one third with a further reduction of up to one half for good time. So you'll hear that referred to a lot as one sixth and one quarter offenses. The Protect Arkansas Act
changes those thresholds to 25 and 50 percent of sentence. Now there's also 85 percent offenses in the Protect Act and 100% offenses. Those offenses are set out in statute. However, as you all know, there's hundreds of criminal offenses in the Arkansas Code, and it would have been very administratively burdensome for the legislature to set those out. And the Sentencing Commission already had a history of kind of setting that transfer eligibility line through the sentencing guidelines. So what you have in front of you is effectively a list of
offenses and which ones have to serve 25% at a minimum and which ones have to serve 50% at a minimum. The 50% list is not very long. Most of the offenses that were previously above the line and had to serve that higher percentage of sentence fell into either the 85% list of offenses or the 100% list of offenses that are set out by statute. One exception that kind of changed where it fell is sexual assault
in the second degree. That was previously a one-sixth offense, and it's now 50%. I think that's pretty much kind of the general gist of it,
and I'm here for questions if anybody has any. Anyone from
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
3:35
the audience? Andrew? Representative? Thank you. Sorry, these are new microphones. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I do have a couple of questions, I guess, on the financial impact statement.
If I could just direct you there, I'm trying to understand a couple of things. So the first question, I guess, is in question three, the reason for adoption of the more costly rule, you all say here to promote public safety by ensuring that more inmates with more serious offenses are required to serve a larger percentage of sentence. What is the basis for that? Because it certainly appears to me from everything I've seen that the connection between longer
sentences and promoting public safety is tenuous at best. In fact, I haven't seen evidence to suggest that this is true. So I'm curious what the basis for
Speaker 12
4:31
this statement is. Well, to begin, I think that this fiscal impact assessment was really difficult to complete because really, really the rule is just shifting, right? Like we discussed, very few offenses went from being in the lower group of parole eligibility to the higher group.
And, you know, I think that there's certainly an incapacitation effect. You know, it's mostly violent or very serious drug offenses. I'm kind of here speaking and, you know, the sentencing commission is the one that sets that policy and it was almost directly ported over. So I don't have a great answer to that question, except that there is certainly an incapacitation effect and that perhaps some of the people who are going to be required to serve 50% of those sentences
are best not on the streets of our communities, so.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
5:29
Well, okay. I mean, I guess, you know, of course, the legislature, we can pass laws for any reason or no reason, but, you know, rules do have to be a little bit defended here, and I understand it's not what you would like to do necessarily, but it is kind of what you have to do. But if I can ask a little bit more technical question, just to follow up, On question six of that same financial impact assessment, the current fiscal year estimated cost is $498, and the next fiscal year cost is $28,393, and there's a note that the impact
was already accounted for in the Protect Arkansas Act. I'm confused by that because the Protect Arkansas Act impact was undetermined, so there was no impact number in that Act and so I don't really know what the baseline is we're saying that this $498.28393 is
increasing over because that was a unknown number. Certainly, so the
Speaker 12
6:28
overall impact of the Protect Arkansas Act was a cannot be determined. However, there was a table included in the back
that dealt with specifically the parole eligibility provisions. So this is just that, which is above and beyond, that has to do with
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
6:46
additional cost of care. So then you're saying that you guys already knew from the Protect Arkansas Act which would be 25
Speaker 12
6:53
and which would be 50 percent? There were assumptions made based on the existing buckets that they were in, the one-sixth or the one-quarter. That's where we assumed that everything would be pushed over, and that was just the underlying assumptions for that fiscal impact.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
7:09
And does this match that exactly? Yes. Other
than the two you mentioned? Other than the increased cost and care. Yes. Okay. Thanks. All
right. Any other questions on review of the rule? Seeing none, we need a motion. Motion. Motion. All those in favor? Aye. All opposed? No. Pass this. Thank you, everybody.
All right, next, we have a presentation of a special report by the Arkansas Legislative Audit. Mr. Lampkin, Mr. Camp, if you want to come to the end of the table, you're recognized to present your presentation. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Heather Lampkin
Unverified
8:11
My name is Heather Lampkin. I'm with the Arkansas Legislative Audit. I have here with me today, Mr.
Speaker 32
8:21
Tom Bullington and Mr. Charlie Camp. This report is issued pursuant to a request approved by the Legislative Joint Auditing Committee for the legislative audit to obtain selected information concerning Arkansas district courts to help the House and Senate Judiciary Committees comply with Act 38 of 2023, which requires a legislative study of financial matters related to the court system
and consideration of any legislative changes necessary to address issues identified during the study. As shown in Exhibit 2 on page 4 and on the slide, the state had a total of 39 state district courts and 10 local district courts during calendar year 2023. The 10 local district courts will no longer exist beginning in calendar year 2025, when they will become state district courts.
Appendix A provides a list of the counties, departments, and outlying jurisdictions that make up each district. During the review period, there were a total of 66 full-time state district judges from the 39 districts and 10 local district judges. Each judge serves a four-year term. Further information regarding state legal personnel and court administration can be found on pages 5 and 6 of the report and caseload information for district courts and public defenders is provided in
Appendix B. This slide shows the portion of Exhibit 1 on page 3 that pertains to state and local district courts. As noted in the exhibit both state and local district courts have limited civil and small claims jurisdiction and hear traffic violations and minor criminal matters. Overall, for calendar year 2023, district court annualized revenues or funding inflows
totaled $119.4 million, including $59.3 million from state-generated revenues and $60.1 million from local entities, as shown on Exhibit 7 on page 13 and on the slide. Annualized expenditures totaled $80.2 million, including $35.9 million in state cost and $44.3 million from local entities. As noted in the summary on page 12, the $23.4 million excess at the state level is primarily
attributed to the inclusion of all State Administration of Justice, or AOJ, revenues, totaling $24.7 million, as reflected in Appendices E and J, and there being minimal expenses associated with district courts. Distributions from the State AOJ Fund can be found in Appendix F. Items in this appendix that were utilized to fund a portion of state expenditure amount of $35.9 million include
distributions to the Prosecutor Coordinator, Municipal Judge Clerk Education Fund, and the Arkansas Public Defender Commission. As reflected in Appendix F, distribution for these three totaled approximately $1.7 million. The slides that follow discuss these funding sources in further detail. The flow of state level court funding is discussed on pages 6 through 10 of the report. As reflected in Appendix J, these sources include those that are attributed to a district
and those that are not. The $26.5 million attributed to individual districts is composed of $19.4 million in in uniform filing fees and miscellaneous revenues, $3.8 million in proportional share of district judge salaries, $3.1 million in judicial fine collection enhancement fund fees, and nearly $239,000 in public defender user and attorney fees.
An additional $32.8 million in funding could not be attributed to an individual district. Included in this amount is $11.9 million from State Central Service Fund, $10.6 million from the Constitutional Officers Fund, $1.2 million from the County Aid Fund, and over $900,000 from professional bail bondsman's fees. An additional $8.2 million comes from other sources, including Circuit Court Collections remitted to the State AOJ Fund and the Judicial Fine Collection Enhancement Fund, the e-filing
fees collected by the Arkansas Supreme Court, which also benefit the Judicial Fine Collection Enhancement Fund, and federal grants. As reflected in Appendix C and noted on page 6, uniform filing fees of $65 in the Civil Division and $50 in the Small Claims Division are collected for initiating a cause of action. Court costs include $300 for violations of the Omnibus DWI Act, or the underage DUI law,
$75 for traffic offenses, $100 for misdemeanor offenses, $25 for non-traffic violations of local ordinances, $25 for violation of mandatory seatbelt laws, and $25 for failure to present proof of insurance. The various cities and counties are allowed to keep a certain portion of these fees and cost referred to as their retained share to fund their city or county level AOJ fund. Any excess is
submitted to DF&A monthly to fund the state AOJ fund. The monthly and annual share amounts that the various cities and counties are allowed to keep for all entities that make up a district is reflected in Appendix D. The excess attributed to the State AOJ Fund is reflected in the first column of Appendix E. As noted on pages 7 and 9 of the report, there is a $10 installment fee applicable to district courts. Half of that fee funds the State AOJ Fund. A fourth goes to fund
the Judicial Fine Collection Enhancement Fund at the Administrative Office of the Courts, and the remaining fourth is retained locally to fund the District Court Automation Fund. Of the District Court installment fees collected in calendar year 2023, approximately $5.1 million was remitted to the State AOJ Fund, as noted in Appendix E, and $2.6 million was remitted to the Judicial Fine Collection Enhancement Fund at the AOC, as noted in Appendix I. Although not identified separately in the report,
approximately $2.6 million was estimated to be retained at the local level for remittance to the District Court Automation Fund. As discussed on the previous slide, $5.1 million in installment fees was collected by District Courts. An additional $14.3 million in uniform filing fees and court costs was collected, and both ultimately funded the State AOJ Fund. When the additional $5.3 million in collections from circuit courts are added, the overall funding for the state AOJ fund for calendar year 2023 totals $24.7 million.
Exhibit 4, shown on the slide and on page 7 of the report, shows the top five and bottom five districts that contributed to the state AOJ fund during calendar year 2023. Amounts are broken out to reflect those related to the excess over allowed retained share of court cost, those related to installment fees, and overall contributions. In addition to the court cost and installment fees collected by the district courts and remitted to the state AOJ fund, numerous other miscellaneous fees and fines are collected
by district courts, as reflected in Appendix G. With the exception of the $5 District Court installment fee already discussed, the slide above shows District Court miscellaneous collections that exceed $100,000 for calendar year 2023. Although numerous types of fees and fines are collected, nearly 95% of the total $6.2 million in collections relates to the items on the slide. With a combined total of over $3 million, the fine installment fees and court technology
fees help to fund the Judicial Fine Collection Enhancement Fund at the AOC, the detail of which can be seen divided out by district in Appendix I. Monthly distributions are made from the State AOJ Fund to various other state and non-state entities. Appendix F provides all distributions from the State AOJ Funds for calendar year 2023, which totals $21.4 million. As of past shortfalls in fund balance, legislation requires that salaries for court reporters,
trial court administrators, and the Arkansas District Judges Council be funded at 100 percent. Additionally, bond requirements provide for preferential payments to the Justice Building Construction Fund. Distributions outside of these preferential categories are proportionally reduced in equal percentages. Like state-level funding, local-level funding comes from a variety of sources. For calendar year 2023, revenue was composed primarily of $51.4 million in fines and fees
collected. Court costs and other revenue totaled $6.8 million and just under $2 million, respectively. It should be noted that local revenues and expenditures are self-reported by the counties and municipalities in each district. Municipalities do not have a standardized chart of accounts. Therefore, the classification of and distinction between the types of revenue reported will vary. It should be noted that Legislative Audit staff reached out to a total of 336 entities to obtain this information, as reflected in Appendix A. Three entities provided none of the information
requested and Legislative Audit could not obtain the information through alternate procedures. Certain fees that produce local-level funding include bail bond fee of $20 that is remitted to the Public Defender Commission. Of each $20 fee, $3 is remitted quarterly to the county to defray the operating expenses of the Public Defender Office. The $2.50 District Court installment fee is also retained locally in the District Court
Automation Fund and is to be used to fund District Court-related technology. Additional funding comes from the Court Security Grant Program, which is administered by the Administrative Office of the Courts to provide financial assistance to local governments for implementation of physical security and emergency preparedness plans for circuit and district courts. Although considered a funding source or revenue for the local government, it is also considered an expense at the state level.
Other funding sources include county and city AOJ funds and the collection of various fines that counties and cities are primarily allowed to retain. As previously mentioned, state and local expenditures totaled $80.2 million for 2023 and included $1.2 million in state non-salary expenditures, as detailed in Appendix K. Also included in this total is $34.7 million in state salary expenditures, including taxes and benefits,
to the 66 state district judges those deputy prosecuting attorneys and public defenders who regularly participate in district court operations staff of the office of the prosecutor coordinator and aoc court automation personnel detailed information is provided in appendix m finally 44.3 million in local expenditures detailed in appendix n include salaries and benefits of district judges, district court clerks, and other personnel who participate
in district court operations, as well as other expenses. Thank you. Any questions
on the special report? Yeah, Representative Richardson,
Speaker 51
21:10
you're first. Thank you, Mr. Chair. When we looked at the local level funding, you said that was self-reported, and then you said there were three that didn't report. What three were those, and why didn't they report it?
Speaker 53
21:27
The three that did not report were Alpena, Rockport, and Haskell. I don't know why they didn't. I talked to a couple of them on the phone and emailed several times. They said they were going to send it, they just never sent it. Thank you.
Chair
Unverified
21:50
Senator Fliers, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a few questions.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
21:58
I would like to know first if you know how the retained share of court
costs was determined in 1996. Does anybody have any idea? That was a little bit before
Speaker 53
22:15
both our times, but I believe it was based on current collections at the county and city level at the time. And then each fund for the administration of justice was given a percentage of those.
And then over the years, they have gotten COLAs every once in
Speaker 63
22:34
a while. But they are still keeping their retained share based on the original
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
22:43
calculation in 1995, I believe. I saw something, I think, in that letter from the Arkansas District Judge's Council that was 1996, but do you know whether that retained share has ever been adjusted?
Speaker 66
22:59
They received COLAs from time to time.
But as I understand it, there
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
23:05
were just certain courts or jurisdictions that were assigned certain amounts of money to be retained is that correct that's correct and so all the courts and jurisdictions were not included particularly now that we have state district courts on board all
Speaker 70
23:26
of the district courts are get a portion
Speaker 53
23:30
of retained court cost but it's not even across the board that's correct it was
based on it was based on their numbers back in 96 or 95 whenever it was done okay
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
23:46
and do you all have an opinion or recommendation on how we can make the retained share from court calls Farrah that would be totally up to
the committee's opinion okay and this is an unaudited report
is that correct that's correct so it could be some errors in here in terms of what is reported in numbers we took
Speaker 53
24:12
what they sent us and pulled it all together and put it in the report we did not
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
24:20
audit or verify those figures okay have audits been done of at least the courts that you did
Speaker 63
24:29
receive responses from um not for 2023 i don't imagine i'm not sure exactly where we are on 2023 engagements
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
24:36
But would you say that all before 2023, that all of them had been audited?
Speaker 53
24:45
No. The cities and counties and smaller cities and larger cities, they're all on such a varying schedule that they all don't hit
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
24:58
at the same time every year. Mr. Chair, I just point out that I think that would be helpful to get the information from reports, recent history of audits. But can
you explain how 10 local courts covering nine counties
could have higher revenue than 39 state district courts covering 66 counties? It just depends on
Speaker 53
25:27
many cases they had, how many were adjudicated, what the fines were. It just varies from place to place. It just doesn't add up
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
25:38
to me, but that's just my opinion. And then when looking at the AOJ fund, is
it correct to say that a large part of that funding comes from district courts?
Speaker 38
25:49
Yes, ma'am, it does. If you look at appendix, I believe, E, you can see that there was a total of 19.3 million
Speaker 32
26:08
that came from district court collections. There was an additional 5.3 million from circuit court collections, which overall totaled the 24.697, or almost $24.7 million.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
26:20
And a large portion of those expenditures cover circuit courts. You
Speaker 32
26:24
are correct. The expenditures for all of the AOJ fund is included in Appendix F. And so, as noted, I believe on page 12 of the report,
Speaker 38
26:36
under the summary, there is a $23.4 million excess at the state level when you're looking at state revenues and expenditures in Exhibit 7, that's on page 13, and of that variance, a large portion is because there is the inclusion
Speaker 32
26:53
of the entire 24.7 million of AOJ distributions, collections from both circuit and district court, and there's only
Speaker 38
27:02
minimal expenses that are actually district court
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
27:07
expenses. So it appears to me, and you can say you
agree or not, that the district courts are really pretty much supporting the expenditures to the circuit courts and AOJ.
Speaker 32
27:24
Well, again, all of the expenditures are included on, I think, Appendix F that transfers out. And so when you look at the makeup of that, which is in the total paid column of that appendix, you can see where
Speaker 38
27:38
the money is being spent. And if you look at it, yes, the Court Reporter Fund and the Trial Court Administrative Assistance are the two largest. For circuit? Yes, ma'am. Those are circuit court expenditures.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
27:54
Do you know of any rationale for why district courts are supporting so heavily financially the circuit courts? I'm not sure why
Speaker 38
28:06
it was set up that way. No, ma'am, I'm not. Is
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
28:13
there a history of how those rules or laws came into being in terms of transferring this money from district court to AOJ?
Speaker 32
28:27
I'm not sure of the history of how that legislation came about. It is an Arkansas code as far as how the money is supposed to be distributed. I know there might be somebody here at AOC that might be able to give a little bit more of a background.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
28:45
Um, as far as that legislation, thank you, Mr. Chair, I would ask if there is someone from AOC that could give some background information. I think it would be helpful to the committee to hear it. Representative Dahlia, you're recognized.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
28:59
Yes, ma'am. Yes, Senator. There are some people from AOC if they, if the chair wants to call them, but in regard to your retained share question, I think that's a big issue that this court, I mean, this committee needs to look at, and my understanding and history of this retained share was based upon census data from way back at that time, and obviously that has now changed. And so we've got some courts that are keeping everything and not turning anything into the
state, and then we have some courts that are turning everything in, basically. And so that is something that needs to be looked at, and I think that's something that we need to put in our recommendation. But yes, it was, as my understanding, it was based on that old census data, and obviously that has changed. So you're
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
29:54
exactly right on that. Well, and the other thing is, you know, we've had this D-CRAB board set up, and it appears to me that since they are charged with the responsibility of lining and setting up or
recommending state district courts, we should have
heard something from them concerning the old data that they use. I don't understand why that hasn't been a
priority. I have requested for D-CRAB
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
30:20
to meet here in the next few weeks, and so they're trying together
that up to discuss some of those things and to discuss, I had two things on my list for D-CRAB and we can add what you're interested in also for them to talk about
D-CRAB. And for those of you who do not know what D-CRAB is, that's the District Court Realignment Allocation Board. Anyway, and so within D-CRAB and let's add, I think that's an excellent idea to add your suggestion, but I had asked for a D-CRAB board to look at are there some of the divisions of these district courts that could be consolidated, and we're talking about smaller ones, you know, and you've met with D-CRAB, so you understand that, and that D-CRAB needs to
look at uniform standards for courtroom security because that was one of those issues we've talked about. And let's add, what specifically would you like D-CRAB to also look at the data in regard to what?
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
31:28
And I'll make sure that they know that. Well, the data, I'm interested in how 10 local courts can
put in more money than I think it's 66 or 39 others. Okay, so the state district courts.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
31:46
The history of those retained shares. Yes. Decrab to look at. Okay, right. We'll ask and I'm sure Senator Decrab is probably looking or watching this, so we'll make sure that they know that and let's have those three items, and Senator, as always, you're always on that call, I think, or a lot of times you've been on that Zoom meeting. Decrab. Decrab. Are
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
32:07
you not on it anymore? I've been taking off of that, but the other thing is we received in an email this letter from the Arkansas District Judges' Council.
Now I guess we're paying for that. I think I heard that in that report that legislative audit gave, and I don't understand why that is still necessary to be paid out of these
fees. And then D-CRAB, if we have now decided and all the state district courts are going to
be created by 2025, why do we even need D-CRAB? It goes away,
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
32:55
you're right. Does it
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
32:57
go away? Okay, so any fees or revenue or monies paid for that purpose? I'd like to know how much is that? And so how much would the state be saving from that termination?
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
33:14
I'll relay that as Chair of House Judiciary.
I'm an ex-officio member to D-Crab, and I'm thinking, representing Clowney, you're on D-Crab, and I have another representative. I can't remember who, but Representative Maddox is on there, and so
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
33:35
we'll make sure that that gets added to y'all's committee meeting. But the other
thing I noted in this, I guess I thought it was some recommendations. I thought they considered this July 24th, 2024 letter from the District Judges Council to be recommendations or they said suggestions to resolution.
And there's not much of a suggestion or any recommendations here. The only thing I can see that they have suggested is they stand firm in the belief that the district court should retain the $2.50 assessment. But there was something that was brought to my attention in their report, the suggestions about the $10 fee for late time payment.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
34:34
Senator, may I interject on that? Yes. I think that there will be some additional discussion on that and the committee is going to have a time here at the end of this agenda to put forth what they think might be some things to look at, and then we'll be coming back in September to kind
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
34:56
of narrow those things down. Okay. Because that will answer your question. Yes. But I am very concerned
about these fees that are charged to individuals that appear before
district court. I mean, that's the lowest level of offense generally. Let me ask, is there a
Kay Palmer? Could you come to the front if there's
anything you'd like to add? If
you'll identify yourself with the record, you're recognized.
Speaker 104
35:44
Am I? Yeah, there you go. Yes, sir, I'm Kay Palmer, and I'm the executive director of the Arkansas District Judges Council. I am not a state employee. I have a contract with the judges. Senator Flower,
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
36:04
do you have a question? Yeah, she said she's
not a state employee. Are you not, is your salary not from state revenue?
Speaker 104
36:15
It comes from the Administration of Justice Fund, but I have a contract with the judges. It was not ever intended to be a
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
36:26
state employee. Well, if the money comes from
fees that are collected and then transferred over to ALJ, seems to me like I don't understand why that wouldn't be
considered a state employee getting state funds to pay for your salary.
Speaker 109
36:45
The check is payable to the Arkansas District Judges Council. So, for
Speaker 112
36:52
this position, I think it's probably just semantics at this point, but
Speaker 109
36:57
that's the way it has been since the initial legislation was written. When was that? 2005. So, Mr. Chair,
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
37:12
and this will be my last, and I'll let others ask their questions.
Is the Arkansas District Judges Council, is that something that receives revenue from the state of Arkansas for its existence?
Speaker 104
37:32
For its existence, no. The council was on itself for years before that. The AOC provided
Speaker 112
37:39
some services to them to allow their association. Where
Speaker 109
37:44
was the revenue coming from to support it?
It was coming from local governments because judges paid dues. Does audit
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
37:54
know that it still is, or is that part of the distribution of funding from AOJ? There
Speaker 109
38:02
is money that goes from AOJF to the Arkansas District Judges Council. I'd like to know how much
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
38:09
that is as well. It's in
Speaker 104
38:12
that omnibus bill. It's $67,000 or $68,000. That's for your salary, though, isn't it?
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
38:20
Yes, ma'am. So how much more is given to
Speaker 112
38:25
the council? None out of that pot. The AOC receives education money, but it doesn't come out of AOJF. The AOC
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
38:40
to figure, so you're saying the only thing the District Judges Council gets from the state is your salary of the $67,000?
Speaker 117
38:51
Yes, ma'am. And I'd like that verified by audit. Okay. Thank you,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
39:06
Mr. Chair. Senator Clark, do you have questions? Oh, I'm sorry. That's all right. Just making sure it
Speaker 120
39:12
was my turn, Mr. Chair. Thank you, sir. Yes, Ms. Palmer, you're excused. Thank
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
39:19
you. Thank you for coming. I don't have a ton to add after what Senator Flowers just asked. I think her points are
extremely well made and very important, starting with how the retained share was calculated in the beginning, all the way down the line. I think, you know, the bottom line is each of these decisions may have made sense at the time they were made. Maybe they didn't, but maybe they did, just to give the benefit of the doubt. But when you look at it as it stands today collectively, I think we all recognize that we have some work that we need to do to clean this up. Just one little point I wanted to make, in addition to what Senator Flowers said, is that,
And this is at the risk of stating the obvious, but you all are discussing the district court revenue here. There is also circuit court. And I just wanted, for the benefit of the membership here, for you all to know that there's a $10 installment fee. You know, I think we have concerns about some of the fees. For me personally, the $10 monthly installment fee is number one on the list. You had a slide about the revenue from the installment fee at the district court level. And for the benefit of our membership here, I just want to point out there's also a $10 installment fee at the circuit court level. and some of that funding goes in, it ends up with AOC as well.
So I just wanted to mention that for the benefit of the group, but also thank Senator Flowers for her
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
40:45
thoughtful questioning on this. All right. Senator Clark,
if you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. In all of this report, I didn't catch, and maybe it doesn't go anywhere, transcript fee, is that included anywhere in the audit report?
Speaker 35
41:05
No, that wasn't a portion of this report as far as district courts. Okay,
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
41:12
because I had a constituent that got hold of me this last week and had a three-hour hearing and a $10,000 transcript fee. So I would be interested in those fees and because you have to have that for an appeal and that seems to be a barrier to us normal people who don't have huge bank accounts.
So I'd like more information there. I'd also, this is for the audit and the chairs, very good report. But to help dummies like me, I would like to see the court funding for each type of court, circuit, district, and any other, ranked, because I like to look at big dollars. This is, it starts here, this much comes from A, this comes from B, this comes from C, this
This comes from D. And I'd also like to see the courts by district, by court, revenue producing ranked and cost ranked. So we can look for discrepancies in who's producing revenue, who's costing revenue, and see if we can get a handle on it that way. That would certainly be helpful to me, Mr. Chair, and the audit.
you. Yeah, we can do that in the district
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
43:11
court. Yeah. So we can get that information. Yes, Representative Flowers. All of this
information that Senator Clark has asked for, I
think it's in this report.
Yeah. And so, I mean, I don't know. Appendix in. Just read it yourself and see it's right there in the appendices. I think some of that is just asking them to do something that
Speaker 136
43:43
would be considered redundant. All right, references of
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
43:47
hunger, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This should be an easy one. On Appendix A, you used the term interlocal agreement provided.
Could you define for me an interlocal
Speaker 53
44:02
agreement? In the context of this report, those would be agreements between jurisdictions at the local level on how they're going to operate and how they're going to fund the court. For example, if you have a city and a county that have an interlocal agreement that the city will pay all the expenses of the court and then the county would, for example, refund them quarterly based on budget.
That is what we consider an interlocal agreement for this
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
44:39
report. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, as a non-member of the committee, but I am a member of audit and voted to do this particular review, and I appreciate Representative Dalby bringing that to us. There may be a very easy answer and explanation for this, but when I look at the remitted
funds to the state AOJ fund and the top five, and it shows districts, so I went back and compared it to the map. So District 1 is Benton County, makes perfect sense, it's a high number. District 2 is Washington County, again, population-wise, make sure that that's a large county. And 31 is Pulaski for the same reason. But then you have the second one is District 23, which is White and Prairie County. And District 25 is Cross and St. Francis County. Now, I just want to look at what the underlying reason of those numbers being high in those
smaller population counties may be a perfectly logical explanation. But I was wondering if Legislative Audit staff has at least a ballpark explanation of those reasons for that? I don't have an
Speaker 42
45:51
understanding of the reason why those amounts were. These
Speaker 32
45:56
amounts came from, there's an administration of justice database that DF&A maintains that this information, that's how we obtained this information. And what we did is we identified
the districts that fall into each individual, or the entities that fall into each individual district, and we summarized the receipts from that database, and so that's how these amounts came into the report, is straight from the DF&A AOJ database, so I would have to go back and look and see if there's any particular reason as to why those amounts ended up being higher than the other districts that you were referring to. Okay. Well,
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
46:36
thank you, and Mr. Chairman, I might mention that we probably want to know that
because I'm as concerned about the bottom five as I am the top five as, well, why are these people remitting that and why are the others not remitting more? And again, there may be a plausible explanation for everything, but I think as far as trying to get an idea and a handle on the actual funding. Well, I totally
agree with you, but I think a lot of it is due to population and the number of citations that are written, and I may be wrong.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
47:11
But I think a lot of it's based on those things. So if we have aggressive enforcement in some counties and maybe lacks enforcement in others, it might relate to it. Okay, that's as good an explanation as I guess I'm going
Speaker 148
47:26
to get today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
47:28
you, staff. Any other questions? I think yes. Senator Clark, are you back? Yes, it has been
suggested that there might have been some confusion on what I asked for. The one, on the individual courts, I specified that all this information was there.
What I asked for was that it be ranked. They have it in Excel or something like that, I don't, and that it be ranked both by expense and by revenue, and so that it's presented in that order rather than numerical order. And also the same thing for circuit courts and district courts when we're looking at 35 million and 1.2 million, et cetera, that we put the highest at the top right on down.
That's ranking. So that we can look at it in a different direction, or at least I can, but I think others will too.
Speaker 150
48:33
Thank you. Are you saying you want that on a spreadsheet? Yes. Audit, are you? I think D-Crab can get it, but
I'm not sure AOC's here if you ask somebody from AOC. Okay, is
anyone from AOC? Who's from AOC? They're here. Yeah, are you able to get that information Senator Clark asked for?
I believe we can get some of it, yes sir. Again, we mostly rely on legislative audit and our work
with DFA to get the covers. Well, maybe you
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
49:10
can work together and come up with us. Okay. Thank you. Representative Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I know this is
probably in there, too, so I apologize. But I'm trying to figure out what all comes from fines and fees and what doesn't.
And maybe the answer is all of it. But can you tell me what does not ultimately come as a fine and fee initially, even if it passes
through some fund or another? Like, what is the bucket that is not fines and fees
Speaker 156
49:38
funding district courts? Okay, I can speak to the state piece, and I can have Charlie
Speaker 38
49:44
speak to the local side. So when you look at Appendix J, and you see all of the incoming receipts, we have amounts that are
Speaker 32
49:55
broken up by district and then those that are not.
And so on J1, when you're looking at the columns, the first two are related to
Speaker 38
50:06
some type of fine or fee. The first one is the, um, all the collections that, um, that are included on the, um, the form that DFNA collects, that is exhibits or appendix C. Um, C1 and C2 give you a description
of what makes up that first column. The second column
Speaker 32
50:34
is applicable to the Judicial Fine Collection Enhancement Fund that's remitted to the AOC. So, again, that is also a fee or fine. The third column is the proportional share of district judge salaries remitted to Auditor of State. Now, this is not a fee or fine. This is something that the cities, towns, and counties, they have
Speaker 38
50:56
their proportional share that's due. And so that's the funding source for that particular column.
The last column is the public user and attorney fees, so that's also a fee. So that takes care of the first J-1, which is a total of $26.5
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
51:19
million. So $23 million of the
Speaker 32
51:22
$26 on that, okay. Correct. Then when you look at the information that cannot be broken out by district that's
Speaker 38
51:30
included on Appendix J, the first, the bail bondsman's fee, that's a fee, the circuit court fees
and miscellaneous revenues remitted to the AOJ fund, that is part of that same, what I made reference to, that Appendix C. It's just the circuit court collection component of it. Then we also have the Circuit Court Judicial Fine Collection Enhancement Fees, that's a fee. The Supreme Court Fine Collection Enhancement Fees, that's also a fee. The County Aid Funds Remitted to the Auditor of State, I know that that is included in our report
and I don't know if the report indicates the original source of the County Aid Funds that gets transferred in. So I'm not sure. It doesn't. I'm being told that it doesn't. It's not a fee component. Then we have different, we have the Constitutional Officers Fund. That transfers
Speaker 32
52:32
in from the Constitutional Officer Fund at the state level to help fund a portion of the district judge salary. Again, there is various things that go into the Constitutional Officers Fund. That's not
necessarily fees and fines collected from the district courts or the circuit courts. Then we have state central service fund transfers in, which would not be fees and fines. It would be the makeup of whatever is defined to be the makeup of the state central service fund. And then you've got
Speaker 38
53:02
some federal grants, and of course, that's not fees or fines.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
53:08
Okay. Okay, and so that's on the state side.
Speaker 53
53:15
At the local level, any kind of generated revenue is going to be, for the most part, fines and fees. There are some immaterial costs that the courts will collect and remit, and the other main source would be if they got any grant funds. If there are any shortfalls and expenditures over revenues, it would have to be covered by
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
53:38
the city or county's general fund. So I'm just from what you said there calculating about 58 million on the state side and roughly all
60 million on the local side would be, I mean, that's almost
Speaker 158
53:52
all of it, right? Yes. Everything that's 118 million? Everything
Speaker 53
53:58
that's shown in Appendix L would be the totality of what they reported as fines and fees, court costs, and other which could include grant revenues. Okay.
Speaker 147
54:15
Any more questions from the committee?
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
54:20
Representative Gasway. Sorry, missed you. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think my questions actually would be
for someone from AOC. So if there's someone from AOC here, and I guess first let me commend audit on what I think is an excellent and thorough
report. Thank you very much. Gentlemen, if you'll recognize yourself with the record, you're recognized.
Speaker 167
54:54
Sam Kaufman, I'm the Finance and Administration Division Director for the AOC.
Speaker 168
55:01
I'm Tim Olthoff, I'm the Director of the Court Information Systems Division for the AOC.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
55:07
Thank you both for being here today. So I guess my first point that I'd like
to make, I'd like to follow up on some of what I want to follow up on what Senator Flowers said with regard to the
funding of circuit courts by district courts.
Is that a function of the fact that the district courts handle the bulk of cases that come through our court system? There's just so many more cases, so many more tickets, so many more fines and fees that are paid
through district court that that's why we would have the district courts
Speaker 167
55:51
subsidizing the circuit courts, so to speak. You know, I'm not sure I would necessarily call it subsidizing, right? But what happens currently is these fines, fees, and costs most often collected at the district court level
are placed into the Administration of Justice Fund. And we have two categories of employees of circuit courts who are funded in large part through that. yeah
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
56:17
subsidizing was probably not the best choice of words but you get the point yes sir the
money the bulk of the money is coming from district courts and it's paying for uh roughly 14 million dollars worth of circuit court expenses out of the administrative administration of justice fund
the other thing that concerns me and i think this is part of what this committee is tasked to do based on this report, which we appreciate, is to come up with recommendations on how to solve some of these issues, particularly the $18 million shortfall in the administration of justice fund. Those are some very legitimate needs that are not being met. I know I've met with some of those stakeholders at various times over the course ever since I've been in the legislature since 2017 about how they're not getting the funding that they
need because their share is reduced in the administration of justice fund. And so is there some plan at the administrative office of the courts or somewhere else? And maybe that's something that this committee should be looking at, but how
exactly are we going to, what is the
Speaker 167
57:25
plan to make up the shortfall? Yes, sir. I mean, I joined the civil service side, I suppose, in 2017 as well, and it's been a problem throughout my career. juror reimbursements come to mind that's something that goes flows through the AOJ fund AOC is tasked
with reimbursing the counties for their juror expenses and it's appropriated at 850,000 annually we're almost never have sufficient funding to actually meet the reimbursement requests so in terms of a plan you know that's ultimately the legislature's decision But, you know, I think the chief justice has been clear, although I don't want to speak for the chief, but general revenue is always an idea. But, yes, I mean, it is a consistent problem in terms of funding all of the administration
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
58:18
of justice fund recipients. Okay, last question. I heard earlier that decrab
is going to go away, is that kind of the way that I
heard it put. Is that, you're
Speaker 167
58:32
shaking your head no. Is that not accurate? I didn't hear that correctly. My understanding is that DCRAB would continue to exist. Now, it would no longer be concerned with local district courts and that they would no longer exist in 2025, but state district courts will likely always have some need for
review on number of judges, court layout, you know, those kinds of matters. Tim, you got anything to add to that? Well, so I know
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
58:59
that they're going to obviously need to be assessed. Their needs are going to need to be assessed. There's no question about that. Is D-CRAB going
to exist to do that, or is that going to fall on the legislature going forward? I'm not sure. Representative Gassway,
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
59:16
may I interject? And I may have spoke to something that was in my mind.
D-CRAB would not go away. It's purpose of what local district courts and state district courts, that purpose goes away, but there will always be a need, just like we'll have recommendations that comes before this committee from the Judicial Council as to the judges, you know, the number of judges. D-CRAB would still function in that way. So there's a population shift. Northeast Arkansas, let's say, because that's where you're from, needs another district judge.
that recommendation would need to come from D-CRAB. Just like if they needed a new circuit judge, that recommendation would come from the Judicial Council. Does that make sense? Absolutely. Yeah, that's what I was trying to find out. Yeah, and I wasn't trying to misspeak. I
was thinking in terms of that need for that
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:00:21
transition. That goes away, but the rest of it is still there. Okay. Thank you very much. That's it. Senator Flowers. I'm just trying to understand and get a clarification of this, because it appeared to me, and I haven't looked recently at the statute that established the D-CREB, but since its main purpose was to bring on board or have a uniform system of state district courts,
And that, as of 2025, will
have been accomplished. I can see the need to have a review to see if more
courts are needed, more judges are needed. Why wouldn't that come under the purview then of the Judicial Council? Why wouldn't we want it to come under the purview of the Judicial Council? Obviously, they collect information, numbers, before
they make a recommendation to enlarge a judicial district.
So, I think that should be considered when we talk about trying to streamline cost. I
don't know what your position is on that, but I think we need to look carefully back at that statute that created D-CRAB and see if the intent was mainly just to establish these state district courts and then be done and then move on and put it under the same
kind of system that we have for circuit courts and expansion of those judicial districts. It just makes
sense to me, that's just my opinion. That could be a recommendation that
you have for the financial matters that we're getting ready to discuss. So Representative Dalby. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:02:28
Tim, while we have you at the end of the table, could you maybe give this committee maybe
some information as to, because there's been discussion on this installment fee and that type of thing. What type of, what's that funding? Can you kind of illuminate us as to what that is and if for some reason it went
away, what would need to be done to replace it? Because I don't think
Speaker 151
1:02:54
we can just, we can't just do away with something. So
Speaker 168
1:02:58
if you'll just tell us, please. Craig, Madam Chair, and one of the things before I go there, I would really like to emphasize that the installment fee, both at the local level and the state level, that
installment fee is the only fund that actually goes to the district court. Even when we're talking about the retained share, the retained share goes to cities and counties, not to the district court. So the installment fee, the $2.50 installment fee to the local district court is the only funding specifically designated to retain or to stay with the district court. So I just wanted to make sure that there was clarity about that.
At the state level, we have relied heavily since 2001 on the installment fee at the state level to fund personnel, license fees for our case management system, jury management system, electronic filing system, the fees that are licensed for the database services,
well as the approximately 40 staff now, I think, in total. The installment fee, the $2.50 share that comes to the state, represents nearly one half of the budget of the CIS division for the AOC. So almost half of our annual budget is funded from the installment fee.
So loss of that fee would pretty much devastate our ability to maintain the systems and services that we're currently responsible for. Let me
ask a question real quick. How much is that funding went up? How much
Speaker 170
1:05:14
of those costs went up in the last decade? That's, it's,
Speaker 168
1:05:22
it's an interesting question.
So up until 2019, the installment fee was gradually increasing year after year. There weren't any real dramatic increases through the years, but it was a gradual increase. In 2020, when the pandemic occurred, we faced serious budget issues for probably three solid
years. Over the last 20 years, we've had one of the goals, because this is a cash fund, the goal had been at the beginning of the fiscal year to have sufficient revenues in reserve to be able to fund a substantial portion of the fiscal year before the year began. Because of the pandemic, we depleted much of the reserves just with our regular operating
expenses and then dealing with the effects of the increases in costs. So you're
Speaker 124
1:06:39
saying technology was a large part of this increase in cost? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. During that period? Yes, sir. So over the last
Speaker 168
1:06:51
several years, just the inflationary pressure on our budget has been substantial. Have those costs started to come down?
We haven't seen, in fact, one of, and I don't want to get into too much detail, but one of the vendors that provides the virtual systems that most of us use in state government and local government, the company called Broadcom purchased the VMware, the software, and what I've heard from my peers around the state is that they're increasing their fees by 200, 300 percent.
So there are these external pressures that we have no control over that we have to find
ways to deal with. Can you
Speaker 168
1:07:47
not shop around to see if you can find a cheaper vendor? We always do. We're always looking for cost-effective opportunities for anything that we do. But for something like Microsoft Windows, I'm sure many in the room would love to shop around for something else, but it's difficult for many of us to maintain our systems without
having laptops with Microsoft Windows as the operating system. Well,
it just appears that the technology costs have far exceeded what the other costs have been, as far as them going up?
Speaker 168
1:08:26
I don't have enough information overall to compare the inflationary impacts of technology with other costs that we've dealt with. All right, Senator
Flowers, you recognize for a question. Thank you.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:08:41
the $2.50 installment fee for court automation, is that the only amount that's charged for installment fee? So what is the total, if you have a uniform installment fee in these courts, what is that? What is that total number?
Speaker 185
1:09:11
In district court, the installment fee is $10 per
Speaker 168
1:09:17
month. $5 is remitted to the AOJ fund, to the state AOJ fund. $2.50 is remitted to AOJ fund for the Judicial Fine Collection Enhancement Fund. So that's the funds that we rely on for providing state court technology services. And then the other $2.50 goes into the local city or county district court automation fund
to fund the technology needs at the local level, such as paying for their internet, paying for their network, paying for their hardware, their machines that they need to rely on. Okay,
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:10:03
and so I don't think it was mentioned
by audit, but it appears from the letter from this district judges council that there is a $10 late fee or payment for late fees that should, that are assessed because a timely installment fee is not paid.
Speaker 189
1:10:31
I am not aware of any legislatively authorized late fee for installment plans. That accrues monthly
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:10:39
when it's not paid, that installment is not paid.
And where does that go? Did you all look at that? Where
Speaker 114
1:10:49
is that money? The installment fee accrues
Speaker 67
1:10:52
every month whether they're paying or not,
Speaker 53
1:10:56
I think is what you're referring to. And those collections at the local level are included in the fines and fees column on Appendix L.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:11:08
So it's not just a one-time installment fee at the beginning of the setup of the installment? No,
Speaker 67
1:11:14
ma'am. It's $10 per month that they owe a balance. And
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:11:18
so all of the other items that Mr. Halthoff just quoted that make up about, I think it was about $10 total, is that every
month? $10 every month? Every month that they have a balance on their time pay account.
And then there is a late
fee assessed. Well,
Speaker 194
1:11:49
according to, I saw something here on
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:11:55
this letter from this district judge's council about late installment payments and
how there was something else charged.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:12:13
I don't know who drafted that letter, but I just got a text, I just got a text that says, and this is from someone over at the Supreme Court that says there is no late fee.
It's only the $10 installment payment fee. So there
may have been somebody who wrote late fee, but just like audit has said that $10 a month accrues whether you've made a payment or not. So some people may refer to it as a late fee, but it's just that $10 a month installment
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:13:05
fee. Yeah, because on the suggestions that are attached to this letter, In this second bullet point, it says the statute further requires that the said fee accrue each month
that a defendant does not make an installment
payment and the fine has not been paid in full. That's correct. It
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:13:28
goes every month. And I think you've hit the nail on the
head. That's something that's of interest to this committee that we need to include in our report as to how to handle a defendant who is requesting time payment, a pay over a certain amount of time? Should that be a monthly fee or should that be a one-time convenience fee
or whatever we want to call it up front? And then how would that money be allocated? Or do we want to look at putting in a line item in the general revenue that would pay for a lot of this stuff? I mean, so there's a lot that goes into it, and I think you've hit the nail on the head of something that is a concern for this committee, and
there'll be something that we need to put in our
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:14:17
report. Well, and the other thing, if I might, Mr. Chair, I was thinking the other day when I was reading this letter from the District Judges Council, you know, when my experience
when people go over to the court and ask for an installment or they can't pay the full amount immediately. And the judge generally admonishes, I've never seen it where a
judge wouldn't admonish that if you have problems, come back and we'll reassess how you pay or whatever. And sometimes it just appears to me that,
you know, you got people that go into district court and don't have employment. And it's almost an impossible task for some
of these people to comply. And that's something that concerns
me, because, you know, we have a debtor's jail, we just lock them
up, and- Well, it only concerns the
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:15:15
defendant, it concerns the defendant's family. Exactly, but what I'm saying
is- That's a good point. Yeah, that's a big concern. Yeah. And the idea that the burden should
be on district courts to support so heavily the circuit courts,
district courts have to often deal with first appearances of defendants that go on to circuit court. So that logic, that's not logical. It doesn't follow. And so, you know, I've been in courts with, take up a whole hour or two just on first appearances for felony cases, and it's not just a one-time thing. I've
seen them come back again,
following day, following week, as long as they're locked up and can't be seen in the circuit court. So, and
that happens when you got an information file. So, the whole scheme is just, It doesn't flow correctly to me. And I think it puts the burden on just the lowest offender. And I wish we'd look at that
and try to make some sense that would be more fair to the people that we serve.
Thank you. Thanks, Senator Flowers. Okay. Senator Clark, you're recognized. A couple of things that we're talking
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:16:58
about expenditures versus fees. What you suggested, the way I understood it, was that a company bought a company and created a monopoly. I mean, if you have no place else to go,
Speaker 189
1:17:15
that would have to be a monopoly. It is VMware
Speaker 168
1:17:20
is the most commonly used virtualization system pretty much in the country.
It's almost like Microsoft, but there are alternatives and we are looking at alternatives and my peers in other states are also looking at alternatives to virtualize the servers that we keep in our data centers. My second question, and
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:17:43
it's probably not for you, and we may not have an answer today, But I would like to know what the average installment, not the fee, but the average
payment each month is. Because if it's $100, that's 10% interest. If it's $50, it's 20% interest. If it's $30, it's 33% interest. And however much we may need the money, it's unconscionable because it ain't rich people paying it. It's poor people carrying the burden of our courts. That's what we've been discussing here in this committee for some time. And so I would like to know, so we can know exactly what percentage usury that we're charging poor people.
Speaker 168
1:18:27
The AOC won't have that directly.
We will have some information from some of our courts, but we will work with legislative audit to do our best to answer your question, Senator.
Thank you. All right, any more
questions from committee? Seeing none, you're released, I thought it was gonna go fast.
Speaker 206
1:19:00
No more questions? Do what? Just thank them for their
stuff. Yeah, thank you for coming and testifying, senior. I
Speaker 207
1:19:14
would suggest this. Hang on, committee, just
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:19:20
a minute. Anybody has any specific things that they're interested in for them to get in touch with us or to Colby, so we can start compiling that. So when we come back in September.
All right, anyone on the committee who has any problems and
has recommendations for this study, which we hope to finish up in September, to do October 1st. If you have any suggestions that you would like to see changed in regard to the financial matters related to the court, get in touch with one of us and get those sent to us and
we'll include those with the staff and they can put together the report that we submit to the governor and speaker and the pro tem
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:20:17
of the Senate. Senator Flowers. One thing that I had a question about on this July 24th letter from the Arkansas District Judges Council was they indicated that they surveyed district judges and asked them to
offer suggestions as to resolution of ongoing problems that exist as they relate to imposition and collection of cost, fines and fees. And they say, in close, there's a two-page summary of suggestions from that group.
I want to know how many district court judges participated in this survey? I've spoken to some district judges and they weren't surveyed,
so I'd like to, I mean,
I was really confused with this thing because I was thinking they
were going to do recommendations and it's hardly recommendations in there except to keep the
$2.50. Ms. Palmer, do you have anything you could add to that?
You might come up here. Sometimes
I had trouble listening to my teacher.
Speaker 104
1:21:38
You recognize Ms. Palmer. Thank you. I did that survey to all district judges. If they don't open emails for me, that could be why Senator Flowers, they didn't, they say they didn't get the survey. But I heard back, there are 60, well, there will be 70 on January 1st, and I heard back from about 25 or 30 of them, and that it was me
Speaker 112
1:22:07
that just wrote those up based on what
they said. Does that respond to
Chair
Unverified
1:22:13
your question? Yeah, it sounds like it's a result of human error.
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
1:22:18
Well, my point was, I don't think that these suggestions were reflective of a full survey of all district court judges, whether they are state district court judges are still existing under the local setup. So that's what was confusing to me, and I wanted to know why and who responded.
Speaker 112
1:22:44
So that's the answer to my question. Thank you. All right. Senator, I'll be glad to send you the list
Speaker 111
1:22:54
of judges who responded. Would you like
to see that? That would be good. Okay. I
can do that when I get back. All right. Thank you, Ms. Palmer. You're excused. Anything else? Any other questions of the committee? If not, we are, our next meeting will be September the 10th, which is now a couple
of weeks before we turn this report in. So thank you again for coming, you're dismissed. Thank you.
Agenda
A. Call to Order
B. Consideration to Approve the June 6, 2024, Meeting Minutes [Exhibit B]
C. Department of Corrections, Arkansas Sentencing Commission, Review of Rule, Eligibility for Transfer to Post-Release Supervision [Exhibit C]
D. Presentation of Special Report by Arkansas Legislative Audit (ALA) [Exhibits D1-D2] 1. Heather Lamkin, CPA, Senior Auditor, ALA 2. Charles B. Camp, CPA, Special Projects Manager, ALA
E. Continuation of Discussion Regarding Financial Matters Related to the Courts Legislative Study
F. Other Bu siness
G. Adjournment
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — JUDICIARY COMMITTEE - SENATE AND HOUSE, Aug 1, 2024 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
| Exhibit B Draft Minutes | Exhibit | 1 | Official source ↗ |
| Exhibit C-ASC Rule | Exhibit | 18 | Official source ↗ |
| Exhibit D1 - Special Reports Information | Exhibit | 44 | Official source ↗ |
| Exhibit D2 - District Courts Report PPT | Exhibit | 17 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Gary Stubblefield Chair
Unverified
Speaker 8
Speaker 12
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
Heather Lampkin
Unverified
Speaker 32
Speaker 51
Speaker 53
Chair
Unverified
Senator Stephanie Flowers
Unverified
Speaker 63
Speaker 66
Speaker 70
Speaker 76
Speaker 38
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
Speaker 104
Speaker 109
Speaker 112
Speaker 117
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
Speaker 120
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
Speaker 35
Speaker 130
Speaker 136
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 42
Speaker 148
Speaker 150
Speaker 156
Speaker 158
Speaker 162
Speaker 147
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
Speaker 167
Speaker 168
Speaker 151
Speaker 170
Speaker 124
Speaker 185
Speaker 189
Speaker 114
Speaker 67
Speaker 194
Speaker 206
Speaker 207
Speaker 111